tv [untitled] November 23, 2010 7:30am-8:00am PST
process. that is what we are thinking, and we should be able to be on the december timeframe for having selected primary responders. commissioner mirkarimi: commissioner campos would like to ask you something, but can you tell us who they are? >> they were respondents to the last rfp that was ultimately unsuccessful. we got a response from a firm called noble america's. we got a response from consolation and a response from show energy -- shell energy.
commissioner mirkarimi: these are not small companies, to say the least. >> three of them for sure. commissioner mirkarimi: interesting change from the first effort until mal. >> we are excited to sit down with the firm's on monday. commissioner campos: just a quick question about the larger strategy before we go forward. i think it is great that we have made progress, but i wonder that going through this process, are we not thinking of another option that would be exploring the possibility of the city simply doing this on its own?
it might very well be that we get to the right result in terms of the rfp process. but i think it may be other advantages. >> the city policy is to try to work with other vendors and achieve all the goals. that is what we are pursuing. we have already begun internally to try to figure out what would be another option. we do buy and sell energy. and why don't we provide greenhouse gas free energy? it would not be starting something from scratch.
we have started looking into that. it is something i agree has holes some interest. >> i don't know what my colleagues think about this, but at some point, there should be maybe a formal request to get that kind of analysis done by puc. maybe there is no need for a formal request. i think it is something that should be done and we should explore what the option looks like fully. i think we should do that perspective of what happens with the -- irrespective of what happens with the rfp process. we might find ourselves in a position similar to one that we saw before. i think we have to explore those
options on a parallel basis. and that means looking at issues are around liability. there are risks involved, the operational limitations. i think we should be looking at that at the same time and finalize the analysis as much as possible. that would be my thinking at this point. commissioner pimentel: the first question is, what if they do not make upgrades and choose to send out [unintelligible] >> what happens if we don't get the responses or qualifications? if we don't receive the minimum qualifications as required, we would need to reject those responses. the next question is, what we
seek to issue another - -would -- would we seek to issue another rfp? i think it would be ripte for policymakers to give guidance about what to do, or some other approach. commissioner pimentel: this happened with the homeowner were the meter was not working. if someone became part of this program, how does it get reimbursed? >> if a customer had an issue with their meter where they weren't being charged? the way that the meter works for all utilities that i know of, if there are anomalies, it raises a
flag. and there is sometimes an estimated bill that is based on historic usage. there are mechanisms for figuring out how to handle that. those are some of the issues that we will be working with. that is the interaction for the data transfer, customer usage data so that we can properly billed customers. >> i want to come back to the point that the commissioner brought up. we touched upon this before, and
i think there is a real emergency where they come to may be the conclusion that in the end, there may be real merit for the city to see the whole program driven by us in the city. what would that take in order to instruct the puc to begin to calculate what that particular role would be? >> i think the guidance from my own commission, the priority -- i can tell you that during the time of issue in the r -- issuing the rfp, what is the process and what should we be doing to answer the question and
provide the services internally? what might be the limitations that we take into consideration to up to buy as benefits for san francisco. commissioner mirkarimi: one of the challenges ahead to be the question of liability. it is a pretty stiff bar. at least we are able to minimize that particular concern, at least to some extent in the consideration of why the sfpuc should step up and compete, for lack of a better phrase. >> one item to recall, we
discussed this a bit when talking about the credit rating. one of the benefits of going with a party supplier is that it is a third party for providing credit to engage in the energy marketplace. with these types of contracts, whether it be us or a third- party with power suppliers, you have to be able to demonstrate that they will be able to buy the power. going with the third party supplier, the benefits is that it is putting up the collateral. we would need to be doing the same. i do believe that that would require of those types of
things are calculated. it might play into a effective program that we think is optimal as we get going. those types of questions we are looking into. commissioner mirkarimi: thinking on the threat of what -- thread of what commissioner campos is talking about, they will be participating about the process. maybe when we leave up to the next joint meeting that i believe is scheduled in december, there be some response how this might be addressed, looking at a potential role and answering the question of what it would look like vying for the cca.
>> i agree with what he said, but anybody that is going to take on risk will factor the cost of that. i think it is a really good idea to look at that because you can break out rescue. -- risk. you can figure out the best way to allocate risk. you will still need a power supplier contract. i would definitely do that. i think it would be a good idea to entertain the motion to direct staff to look at that auction -- option. as well as, we'll agendize that for the joint meeting in
december. commissioner campos: if i may, i would make a motion to direct staff to ask the puc to explore the possibility of the city essentially managing the program and operating income internally to explore the possibility of how much of that can help. commissioner mirkarimi: without objection? excellent. that was useful. regarding the report by mr. campbell, is there anything you would like to add to that? >> ha the date of december 6, i would like to move that up a little bit and it will depend on meeting with them. i would like to try to give them a week to respond or whatever seems reasonable.
i have not yet had a chance to talk with mike about the time that we are allowing them to respond. the point would be to make it as quick as possible. commissioner mirkarimi: our meeting on the tenth sounds like it is going forward. the joint meeting with sfpuc. whatever we can do to expedite a more thorough hearing would be helpful. >> we will be able to figure out if they need the weeks, and i know that we have a holiday coming up. whether or not we can compress that a bit. >> we will be working together on monday. i suggested december 6 because i was thinking of a two-week time
frame. we will be asking for something new, and we don't plan to work through the thanksgiving holiday. commissioner mirkarimi: if there are no further comments, why don't we ask for public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i've been coordinating of a lot of cca strategy here in town. the first thing i would say, regardless of who wins doing procurements, whether it is the contractors or sfpuc, we need to keep in mind that the best way to defend ourselves against risk is to build a lot of stuff
can do a lot of the installations. you have plenty of capacity very early on so that you have assets. it will be easier to fight when it plays the pricing games. we need to make sure that we are doing that. as we have said before, be one big package and we will get a master contract. that gets the 51% goal done. we had a clean energy stakeholders meeting, and something came up that was quite a concern. that was the san francisco electricity resources plan. now we are getting ready for another one. the sfpuc -- we looked at rocky
mountain institute supports, this was with no communication of any strong note. that was the main note that i personally sounded. put on the brakes, get everybody at the table. we should have meetings to flesh out the sfprp. one of the things was how important cca was. local power, the creator on the green tech advisory committe? the answer was no.
we need both local power to weigh in on it. instead of trying to russia this, we need to go for spring. -- instead of trying to russia this, we need to go for spring. [chime] thanks. commissioner mirkarimi: next speaker, please. >> i just wanted to echo the statements of mr. brooks as to the importance of the response of this motion. i would reiterate focusing on what a lot of the advocates are looking for.
really make that a core part of the program. i think it would be really great. along with that, it is going to happen with the deployment and with that energy efficiency. as is outlined in the original plan, these huge for local job creation. especially the mandatory local hiring policy. we can really leverage a lot of new benefits in this program. the only other thing i wanted to add was, now that the puc is going to respond to this motion, it might really make sense to hold back on the san francisco energy electricity resources plan. that is a road map for san
francisco's of electricity future. you are going to look at how to represent this program, it should be put into the report. we should delay that until the findings or study or result of this motion can be incorporated. commissioner mirkarimi: good point. any other public comment? public comment is close. -- closed. there is no further approval necessary. please read the next item. >> item number 4, an update on the pole mounted solar from the september 17 meeting. >> i wanted to give a brief overview of what happened in the last meeting where we talked about the solar project.
since the last meeting, lafco staff has sat down with petro solar twice. they are the contract for the new jersey -- they are providing the pole-mounted solar units. we clarified a lot of the specifics of such a program and how it would work specifically. the first meeting in included richard smith. the second meeting included the general manager of power enterprise at the sfpuc. and the streetlights team.
and just some major sticking points that i would like to call out, we would have to reach an agreement with pg&e. simply because we are feeding the energy into the grid. another point is that it is a question of what kind of communication mechanism might be used in order to manage and monitor the unit. the solar units are monitored by the technology. i think there are plans to have the new puc -- to use existing communication mechanisms. another point is metering and how to measure the output of the solar units. each would have the meter installed.
and lastly, the city processes as well as teh puc -- the puc mentioned there would have to be a ceqa process. and they brought this up regarding conjecture in terms of overhead wiring and things like that. the next step sounds like petrasolar would have to have a pilot project. they went through some of the items they would need in this proposal. and the proposed efficiency of such a program, trying to measure the output and qualification.
we're going to be waiting on petra how to see if they will submit a proposal. the you have any questions? commissioner mirkarimi: when would we know potentially? do we encourage them to go ahead and submit horovitz register their interest? >> from my meetings, it did not sound like there was any time line. i know that a representative is here today. we did not talk about a specific time line. commissioner mirkarimi: can we ask the representative? thank you. >> regulatory manager for petra solar. commissioner mirkarimi: are you interested in submitting a
proposal? >> we are hoping to get you guys a draft next week commissioner mirkarimi:. commissioner mirkarimi: -- next week. commissioner mirkarimi: would this be in time for the meeting on september 10? that would be interesting. who would asked pg&e permission? would it be sfpuc? >> i know that we have had discussions with them, but i did not know the answer to that. commissioner mirkarimi: what did they say to you? >> they don't have a definitive answer. commissioner mirkarimi: let me come back around. is miss hale circling the wagons on this? >> they have been meeting with
pg&e regarding such projects, trying to fill them out about it. i don't know about the specifics. in terms of working with pg&e at trying to allow us to solve these things, i think it is something they will have to work out. >> one issue is the pilot program because we would just be testing the technology to see how it works. the long-term issue of how you would rule out a substantial part in san francisco proper, we don't own any of the distribution infrastructure and it would require working things out.
given the challenges, i suspect it would be a challenge. one of the big issues is the meter in in terms of keeping track of how much energy is coming out of the panel. commissioner mirkarimi: have we ever negotiated a pilot like this with pg&e? i would think we would have. i think just the question of the receptiveness, this idea by the city, the city itself will tell the story. did you want to add something? >> we have the pilot project that doesn't require ceqa or pg&e approval. that is what we want to get
going on. that is the first thing to do. if it does, we have a potential program and we will be back to you if it shows promise about ways to initiate it. commissioner mirkarimi: no action is required, correct? public comment on this item? >> i told the journal and i would mention that one thing that would be really blood would be to carve out the ability to deliver 50% local hiring in terms of doing this project. some of the things you might think about, you can talk to any of the commission members, you can talk to the city program, and you talk about whatever you're going to do.
people would really like to be a part of that. i think definitely just think about how you can commit to doing 50% local hiring on this project, a lot of people will be even more exciting -- excited about it. folks that are really hungry to be involved in green jobs, years of all them dirty power plants, for example. i'm just thinking out loud for you. it might be good here whenever you propose to us. it would be a really good thing to hear from you. commissioner mirkarimi: nothing stopping them from killing 100% local hiring, which we encourage, too. >> one of the great stories --
sorry, walker wright. one of the items that is really exciting about the project in new jersey is that as a qualifying project, and there is nothing that says jobs have to be created locally. obviously, they are getting delayed consistently and there will be jobs on the install side. what makes us different, we have chosen to have 100% of our assembly jobs local right next to where the project takes place. commissioner mirkarimi: you enter into a time when leadership of others trying to push for a very strict agreements on amplifying the local hiring goals. it's something that we want to send strong signals.